Thursday, January 3, 2008


A large majority of Muslim women wear ‘burkha’. Of those who wear ‘burkha’ think that it is a command from Allah and hence compulsary. Afterall, violating Allah’s command means hell after death. Whether Allah really commanded so is a matter of dispute, I say matter of dispute because it depends on one’s interpretation of the relevant verse. For some it is liberation. It gives you anonimity. Even the girl’s father cannot recognise her if he happens to see her outside the house. Great emancipation!

My own interpretation of the relevent verse is that a woman should dress modestly, which means she should cover her breasts and not highlight her sexuality. I have never seen a painting of Mary without head cover.

While I am not in favour of ‘burkha’, I am also not in favour of displaying armpits, and heavy make up of face. Is displaying of armpits a sign of liberation?

You see men dressed from top to toe with that meaningless tie and women are ‘half naked’, to use a phrase Churchil did to describe Mahatma Gandhi. He used it contemptuously, while my sympathies are with western women. Or, are western women wearing minimum as a weapon?
Victorian age was puritanical to the extent the legs of a table were covered. Women were dressed top to toe. In 1890s it was said, ‘to breathe one had to break the windows’. Has the rebellion of women gone so far as to shedding their clothes bit by bit? Western women need to introspect. Their perceived freedom is perhaps becoming their hadicap

No comments: